IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHRIS DUNBAR, CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner,

v. NO. 21-5235-KSM

SUPERINTENDENT OLIVER, et al.,

Respondents.

ORDER AND NOW this 1st day of July, 2024, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Pamela A. Carlos (the “R&R”) (Doc. No. 17), to which neither party objects, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.1 4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Karen Spencer Marston ______________________________ KAREN SPENCER MARSTON, J.

1 Because jurists of reason would not debate the procedural or substantive dispositions of Petitioner’s claims, no certificate of appealability should be granted. See Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. . . . When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”).